Slashdot Mirror
Uber: We Don't Need a Permit For Self-Driving Cars (cnet.com)
Uber has a simple approach to business: Don't ask for permission, but be prepared to seek forgiveness. Its foray into self-driving cars in California is no different. From a report on CNET: Confirming news that CNET broke Tuesday, the ride-hailing company officially announced Wednesday that it's rolling out a fleet of self-driving cars to passengers in San Francisco, making California only the second state in which Uber offers such services. But Uber didn't run the plan past the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which requires a permit for such cars. Now, the DMV told Uber to cut it out... or else. "It is illegal for the company to operate its self-driving vehicles on public roads until it receives an autonomous vehicle testing permit," the DMV wrote in a letter to Uber on Wednesday. "Any action by Uber to continue the operation of vehicles equipped with autonomous technology on public streets in California must cease." [...] The DMV warned Uber a month ago that it needed a permit to operate self-driving cars in the state, according to Brian Soublet, the department's chief legal counsel, who held a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. Soublet said he told the company the same thing Tuesday before its launch. But Uber didn't appear to listen. "We understand that there is a debate over whether or not we need a testing permit to launch self-driving Ubers in San Francisco," Anthony Levandowski, Uber's vice president of self-driving technology, wrote in a blog post Wednesday. "We have looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe we do."
Will Uber pay for a permit to have their autonomous cars not run red lights? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We want to make a PR stunt to show that regulation is killing innovation in the industry and that we're the hip and cool future while our legal team thinks we'll be able to backpedal in time to avoid major economic penalties.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's the same old Silicon Valley crap. Laws? What laws? Who needs laws when you have other people's money?
"We have looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe we do."
Translation: "We'll do whatever we want until a judge tells us to stop. Maybe not even then."
I don't really get why Uber would give a shit about autonomous vehicles. Their entire business model is based around an asset light setup. They don't own or insure the cars that Uber drivers use. Going to autonomous vehicles in any substantial way would require a very hefty capital investment AND it would ruin their (bogus) argument that they aren't a taxi service. It doesn't make much sense to me.
I'd say the government is the one responsible for managing conduct on the roads, and dealing with the consequences when people make mistakes and harm others.
This includes their robots, horses, and whatnot.
They have learned from the best...government agencies.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
Uber's arrogance and lack of co-operation makes them a company I don't choose to do with business with. Vote with your dollars, its apparently the only thing some people pay attention to.
"Autonomous vehicle testing permit?" Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Permits have nothing to do with knowing all about vehicle testing, though in actual fact state and federal government agencies actually know quite a bit. The reason for the permits has to do with ensuring that public safety is respected and that companies aren't behaving recklessly. If someone is going to be testing experimental and possibly dangerous vehicles on public roads where injuries to citizens might result then the government ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be involved. Nobody else is going to protect me from Uber's reckless pursuit of the almighty dollar. I'm quite sure Uber would literally run people over if there were no consequences for doing so. I have to get an operators permit to drive a vehicle on public roads. It should not be any different for Uber needing a permit to do the same with a computer driven car.
So those road signs and the marks on the road and the traffic lights... those have no legal standing? They weren't put up by the government? They're just decorations? Driver's licenses are optional and there's no law against driving without one as long as you have insurance? You can drive drunk?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There is also a requirement that the driver hold a valid operator's permit. Since the car is "driving", it seems like the car would need one. Carrying the analogy further, today I would think that the car basically would have its "temps". I can understand how Uber may have gotten the car to pass the maneuverability portion of the test, but I do struggle to understand how it would pass the written portion.
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation.
I do. We're talking about unproven technology operating the vehicle in a location that could result in physical harm to others. I absolutely want the government breathing down their necks to ensure that they are taking appropriate precautions to ensure public safety. I don't give a shit if they have insurance and a pile of cash. That doesn't bring people back from the dead after a wreck.
If Uber (or others) want to play on public roads with experimental equipment then a little oversight is completely justified.
Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't.
That is a bogus assertion that you cannot possibly back up. There is a very real chance that someone might get hurt by one of their vehicles.
The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions.
Bullshit. Companies take risks that injure people all the time and the mere threat of liability is demonstrably not enough to stop them. Especially if the profit from their actions exceeds the likely cost of the liability. Ask GM about their ignitions and let me know how much the threat of liability helped the people who are now dead.
Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Here's a little bit of Civics 101 for you, kid:
A business exists to make money. A government doesn't. Uber has a financial incentive to put these cars on the road as fast as possible. Our government's job is to make sure that entities of all kinds (individual and now, corporate) don't unnecessarily injure others. That's the responsibility of government in our society. So, based on the financial incentive alone, it's a smart idea for the government to regulate these kinds of things.
I don't respond to AC's.
I thought Uber was an internet service company that contracts driving out to private contractors. What do they need self-driving cars far?
I mean, it's obvious that Uber is just trying to bullshit everyone, but don't companies like this usually rely on others to negate their arguments for them?
Oh, just fuck off.
I don't respond to AC's.
Following the rules is the responsibility of the operator. Setting the rules is the responsibility of the government. In this case the government has set a rule, so why do you think Uber should be exempt from this rule and not from all the others?
Individual car ownership is going to go away in all of the populated parts of the country as soon as automated cars work well.
Nonsense. We already have public transportation and taxi services available and those haven't impacted car ownership hardly at all outside of some of the highest population density cities. The fact that a car is autonomous will not affect the cost model significantly. I could today call a taxi to take me everywhere but I don't. It's more expensive to do that than it is to own a car in most of the US.
How is communal ownership going to work with rush hour? Everybody will need a car at roughly the same time and those extra cars are going to be mostly idle just like they are now between commutes. I own a car because I need to drive a substantial number of miles daily, getting a taxi would cost more and I don't have to wait for my ride to arrive. Communal car ownership makes little to no sense for most people in the US.
Actually in California all Speed Limits are suggestions rather than rules. The actual law states drive at a reasonable speed which is defined as 85 percentile of all the cars on the road. Also there needs to have been a survey of the highway/freeway during the past 5 years for the 85 percentile value to be valid. So if you ever get a speeding ticket in California just plead not guilty go to trial and ask to see the survey. 9 cases out of 10 the case will be dismissed. People just dont bother exercising their right to a fair trial when it comes to traffic offenses.
**Life is too short to be serious**
And establishing and enforcing those rules is the responsibility of the government. Including rules like "You need a driver's license to legally operate a motor vehicle" or "you need an autonomous vehicle permit to legally operate an autonomous vehicle"
Basically, in either case you are required to *prove* your implied claim that the vehicle will be operated safely to the relevant regulatory body if you want to do so legally.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
fat lot of good that does the dead person.
hence trying to stop problems before they are problems.
typical libertarian nonsense.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Do you object to driver's licenses being required and being issued upon passing a series of tests? For example, blind people fail the vision test and can't get their license so can't legally operate a vehicle on public roadways. Would you like to the requirement for driver's licenses eliminated - after all, if a blind guy drives, he is "responsible" so he should be allowed to drive? How about prohibitions on driving with a BAC above 0.08? If you want to drive with a BAC of 0.25, why shouldn't you -- after all, you are responsible?
If one believes in licenses being required by human drivers, isn't it reasonable to require some sort of license (part of which involves a real-live skills test) for "robotic" drivers?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Given Uber continuously ignores the law at what point should they be considered organised crime and have their assets seized as the proceeds of crime?
"Operator" typically being the physical driver of the vehicle, ie someone who has been trained to drive, already, and has already passed a test wherein they demonstrated as much, not the owner/developer of an autonomous vehicle who's "operator" under this definition is its software.
your argument is specious and you damn well know it.
or should.
if you don't, more shame and ignorance on you.
Uber wants the public to carry the risk of their testing on public roads, without following the public's rules regarding the threshold the public has set for accepting that risk.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Last time I looked at this (about 40 years ago), the 85% rule and current traffic survey rule applied only to radar (and, maybe, aerial) enforcement.
At that time, I got nailed by radar so went down to the city hall and requested the survey -- indeed they had one that was quite recent and it "justified" the limit.
Oddly, though, the survey was taken on the day after Christmas and the road was a main thoroughfare to the largest regional mall in the area. This was back in the era when people flocked to brick and mortar stores the day after Christmas to buy all the crap no one had bought (again, in the days before "big" data -- or even "modest" data -- was used to predict demand more accurately and optimize profits so there was a lot more junk to get rid of in stores back then). As well, upon checking the microfilm of the local newspaper for the days around the survey, I discovered it was raining fairly hard much of the day the survey was taken (a detail that the survey failed to mention). From my personal experience, I avoided this road (and the general area) in the week or two leading up to Christmas and just after Thanksgiving because it was so congested but used it regularly the rest of the time.
When I was nailed, it was mid-morning on a clear, warm, dry, summer day nowhere near a holiday. Traffic was so light that there were maybe five cars visible to me on a three lane (each way) road, wide shoulders, a full width double-double yellow "divider lane", posted no parking on both sides, no pedestrian traffic present (and there were generous sidewalks if there had been), no residences or businesses fronting on the street (just a continuous block wall behind large housing developments, and only the occasional side street (all of which had dedicated left turn pockets onto them from the street I was on and either were signal controlled or were non-through streets with "one-way" stop signs and with clear visibility both ways).
I thought about fighting it based on the traffic survey not being representative of normal traffic flow about 350 days of the year, including the day I was driving, but was too busy with school and work so didn't. To this day I regret not fighting it as I'm sure thousands of people got unjustified tickets over the years on that stretch of road and most (in pre internet days) wouldn't have thought to research the law let alone actually get a copy of the traffic survey and known the game the city was playing.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
It wouldn't be your fault if the chimps crashed. They're independent contractors!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The cars need to be registered, the operators need an operators permit. I believe both already have them, and we don't need more.
You deliberately left out the part about the "operator" not actually driving the car -- the autonomous system is (at least some of the time) driving the car. So that autonomous system needs to be licensed or permitted to prove that it can operate safely. Just like the human operator.
Honestly, your argument is dishonest at best.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
So when an Uber runs a red we can send tickets to all the software schmucks? Is every line written by an engineer with a DL in California?
You really want to use this line of reasoning?
But people die anyway. If your requirement is that unless you can absolutely guarantee that no one will be hurt you can not operate, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either. Fail.
Nobody is calling for perfect safety. That is impossible. What we want is to minimize the hazard and that CANNOT happen without regulation. What I'm not ok with is an unregulated wild west when I'm in the line of fire. We regulate things that are dangerous for a reason so that we can minimize the damage. No reason it should be different for Uber's autonomous vehicles.
There is an absolute chance that someone will get hurt. Thats why there is financial compensation to make whole as best as possible those you are responsible for hurting.
That's for the accidents that cannot be avoided. You cannot make someone whole who is injured or dead. We can avoid a lot of accidents by proper regulation. Failing to regulate companies results in unnecessary harm to people. No amount of insurance money after the fact will resurrect someone who was killed because we couldn't be bothered to oversee an irresponsible company.
GM would not have committed the engineering mistake if it could have avoided it, and the ignition defect didn't contribute to GM's profits as you are alleging
It doesn't matter if the mistake was intentional or not. They failed to address it in a timely manner and to all appearances covered up the problem for a long time. Covering up the errors absolutely did add to GMs profits. Recalls are crazy expensive and GM failed to act about a known problem. Whether this was through greed or incompetence is irrelevant. The fact is that their actions hurt people in pursuit of greater profits. GM is merely one in a LOOOOONG line of companies that have killed and injured people in order to realize greater profits. If you need examples I refer you to BP, Union Carbide, Hooker Chemical, and I can keep going for hours.
Actually in California all Speed Limits are suggestions rather than rules. The actual law states drive at a reasonable speed which is defined as 85 percentile of all the cars on the road. Also there needs to have been a survey of the highway/freeway during the past 5 years for the 85 percentile value to be valid. So if you ever get a speeding ticket in California just plead not guilty go to trial and ask to see the survey. 9 cases out of 10 the case will be dismissed. People just dont bother exercising their right to a fair trial when it comes to traffic offenses.
That is factually incorrect. California has what is known as a Basic Speed Law which stops at 55MPH. The Basic Speed Law does behave as you say for any road with a limit posted at or below 55MPH. If you're going 1 MPH over 55MPH, you can no longer use the basic speed law to get out of a ticket regardless of what the speed limit is.
Owning a fleet of taxis is not the same as you might think, as that taxi is leased to a driver for his shift.
They are double dipping against the driver who is also not an employee but a "self employed" entity
This is Uber AND Taxi services.
Rick B.
> someone has to make the leap and the risk, even a few deaths, is worth the reward. US society is not technologically progressive enough to allow for this in the next few decades so capitalism provides. Uber is as good as anyone to bear the brunt of the risks (and inevitable lawsuits).
Go ahead then, you offer up your life first and we'll all reap the rewards. Moron.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
Agreed... otherwise, if we follow grandparent's argument, my 5 year old can drive on the roads if I call myself the "operator".
In aviation the operator can be the pilot, or it can be the airline he works for. In road vehicles, I think we can all read "operator" as "entity that moves the controls".
My daughter recently got her driver's license here in MA. Not sure I think any of the current autonomous vehicles would pass that test. It was pretty tough.
... I couldn't hate this company more, they do this. I like the idea of what they do, but the disdain for the rule of law is unforgiveable.
"Science is the power of man"
They make the roads safer by not allowing any idiot with a Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone and a tenuous grasp of engineering to run their own "self driving car". If you want to test an SDC on CA roads, you have to get a permit. Even if it doesn't demonstrably make the streets safer, it certainly reduces the RISK of something bad happening.
Not necessarily.
SDCs are not going to react like humans to unusual situations and humans are used to others reacting like humans. SDCs, for financial liability reasons (and, to avoid racking up so many traffic tickets that they are uneconomical), must always "work to rule" -- this, just like "work to rule" work actions whose entire intent is to destroy productivity, would be very disruptive.
Consider, for example, emergency vehicles with lights and siren are responding to a life threatening emergency. They come up on a red light or some other situation where cars are blocking their way. Every car (SDC or HDC) has pulled as far to the right as they can and stopped -- unfortunately, since they were already stopped and the light is red, they can't move further to the right (that would require both moving - oops, and ignoring a traffic control device - oops). The emergency vehicles come up behind the line of stopped cars blocking the intersection and, what they do in my area, get on their PA system and order me to drive through the red light (it's then legal for me to do so -- official emergency response personnel orders take priority over traffic control devices). Someone in the cab is also usually gesticulating with non-uniform, but understandable, gestures given the situation and the limited number of options. Even when the wind is howling and the rain is pounding down and the guy in the truck has a heavy accent, HDCs do what they are told (it sometimes takes a bit for them to grok it, but they seem to within seconds). Will SDCs do the same (and not do it when some guy, in a fit of road rage, is just yelling out the window telling them to drive through the red light)? If the SDCs fail to move, the delay could cost someone their life.
Or consider that cars approaching a signal which is out are supposed to treat it as a stop sign. But, humans are reasonable, if the signal is new, all but one of the lights is still covered by cardboard, there's no evidence of a power outage, the cross traffic still has a stop sign, humans on the main street won't stop suddenly and create a traffic hazard on the (correct) assumption that the wind just blew the cardboard cover off one of the lights. On the other hand, even if the signal is new but appears to be fully deployed, and the power in the area appears to be off, humans (usually) do the right thing. The SDC may not have gotten the message yet that the signal is active so it may make the wrong decision in this case (or the wrong decision in the prior case).
If there is a pedestrian who wants to cross at an intersection (with, or without, a stop sign, with, or without, a painted crosswalk), cars must yield to the pedestrian. However, people stand on street corners and chat, sometimes they wave the driver on (indicating they don't want to cross but, maybe, are just waiting for someone), sometimes they are buried in their phone and showing no signs of actually crossing. In these situations humans are pretty good at figuring out the situation and responding correctly. SDCs, probably not so much yet. Recall the google car case of a google car following a garbage truck from house to house, stopping at each one as the truck picked up the trash, instead of passing it like humans do. This creates a hazard because now it's more dangerous for a HDC to pass because it has to not only pass the truck (as expected) but ten SDCs which have piled up behind the garbage truck in the past ten minutes. Or, recall the google car that was horribly confused by the bicyclist (who did not have the right of way and had stopped to yield it at a four way stop) but the bicyclist was doing a track stand -- which meant he was moving a bit and this caused the google car to "stutter step" across the intersection -- potentially confusing other drivers. Or, recall the google car that assumed (I have no idea why) that a big bus would just yield to it (even though the bus had the right of way) when it swerved into its lane to avoid a waddle (or similar) around a storm drain.
Where I live, w
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading